If I'm unemployed, should I vote for Romney?

Politics & Elections
61

Well, I’m not personally against one voting in one’s own interests, even in the short-term. I’m not saying it’s the best or most noble thing, and certainly not what I do. But it’s a defensible reason.

But I absolutely insist that if you do so, you need to be grown-up enough to see the contrast between “I hold the President responsible for serving as many people like me as possible” and “I hold the President responsible for my personal outcome” (whether your expectation is a job or a welfare check or not to be killed by someone smuggling explosives past security in a mouthwash bottle tucked beneath his scrotum).

62

The world doesn’t owe you a living. If the free market doesn’t provide you a job you’re qualified for, the world needs ditch diggers. If you can’t dig ditches, then you’re too weak to survive in this world.

Here are my cites.

63

Agreed.

64

I am all for voting your interests. If you are a hedge fund manager, international conglomerate CEO, oil tycoon, heiress or robber baron, by all means vote Romney. An unemployed teacher? Bwahahahaha.

65

If Saint Cad ever bothers to come back, I thought I’d highlight this post.

HR 1586 - Aid To States for Medicaid, Teacher Employment, and Other Purposes - Key Vote

In the House, it was Yea: 247 Nay: 161. Every single Republican that voted voted Nay, except one. Every single Democrat that voted voted Yea.

In the Senate, it was Yea: 61 Nay: 39. Every single Republican that voted voted Nay, except two. Every single Democrat that voted voted Yea except three.

Saint Cad. I make no subjective statement on the inherrent “goodness” or “evilness” of any party. This is about where your self interests are and which party best represents what’s best for you.
You want to work as a teacher. Given that you’re not working, you need an effective social safety net.

So just answer this. Which party serves your interest, the one where 99% of its members vote FOR something that will help you, or the one where 99% of its members vote AGAINST something that will help you?

Then ask yourself which way Romney would vote, given the power as leader of the Executive Branch.

66

Where are you seeing that? I’m seeing Yea votes from **every **Democrat (plus Sanders, Lieberman, Snowe and Collins).

ETA: Oh I see - you’ve got the House and Senate results switched.

67

Is this just a belch of a topic we’re going to get from this guy every six months or so until he gets a job? He seems compelled to share it with us as he goes by. Perhaps crop dusting is the better analogy.

68

http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/2012/04/06/the-bikini-graph-is-back-unemployment-rate-drops-to-8-2/

When the president took office, jobs were being lost at a rate that had been accelerating pretty much for the previous year. Almost every month was worse than the previous one, which was worse than the one before that.

Pretty much as soon as Obama took over, the acceleration in job losses stopped. Yes there were still jobs being lost at the same rate as the end of Bush’s term, but each month was no worse than the one before.

Within less than six months, the figures for one month were better than the last, which were a little better than one before that.

Within a year, small gains were being made. If you looked at private sector jobs, there was no net loss after Jan. 2010. Public sector job losses, driven by Republican budget cutting gave a down month here and there to the total job picture, mid 2010 was especially bad but over any 12 month period it has still been positive, or stagnant at worst since Jan 2010.

69

So I did. Apologies for the confusion. Results basically the same, though.

70

  1. Blame Olympia Snowe, sort of. The cost of her vote on the stimulus package was shaving some ~$100 billion of aid to state and local governments, IIRC. Problematically, that was the part of the 2009 bill that had most bang for the buck - a multiplier of 1.6 perhaps. We have a $15 trillion economy: one percent extra of GDP isn’t small. Of course if the Republicans acted according to historic norms, the stimulus package wouldn’t have been filibustered anyway. The founding fathers didn’t intend to require 60 Senate votes for passage of anything: that’s a modern Republican innovation.

  2. The fact is, state and local spending has been a large and historically unusual drag on the recovery. In the past, Republicans have understood that recessions and depressions justify special measures. It’s only recently that they’ve figured out that bi-partisanship helps the party controlling the executive disproportionately. And it’s only in the past 20 years when most Washington Republicans feared their primary more than the general election. Our system has some terrible incentives, but I expect the filibuster to be seriously addressed within the next 10 years, probably this January. The Presidential appointment problem is another (serious) matter.

  3. There’s a chart of US employment in 4 sectors. Saint Cad teaches math, so I trust he can read and study it. My takeaway is that the performance of state and local hiring has indeed been unusual this recession. But there are other interpretations. Sectoral shifts in the U.S. economy: More waitresses & nurses, fewer teachers and factory workers.

71

Only if you live in China or some other outsourcing country.

72

Bit of a reality check for you. The economy went into a freefall starting around 2007. Some would say due in no small part to 8 years of George W Bush’s policies (well, 7 at that point). If you care to look at the employment numbers from the BLS, you will see that approximately 1 year after Obama took office, employment leveled off and has steadily been increasing since that point.

Being a successful management consultant and running a private equity frim has absolutely nothing to do with creating good economic policy.

73

You are a TEACHER. NOBODY is your friend. Nobody will ever be your friend.

EVERYONE, no matter who they are or what they do thinks they should be paid more than a teacher.

Many people favor education but freak out if money in form of salary goes to a teacher even if the $/hour falls below minimum wage. I personally saw people go through hysterics when someone wanted to pay the teacher who was supervising the putting on a school play paid $500…for about 100 hours of work.

Most everyone wants to see their tax dollars decrease or at least not go up.

Most everyone wants an appearance of a good education, but don’t actually want to pay for one. Appearance is fine…so being academically qualified for a position like you have mentioned above doesn’t have the influence you think it should.

You are a teacher. Please, for your sanity, realize that you have no friends and no respect in society. It will drive you insane if you do not realize this and go by what people say.

BD
(ex-teacher)

74

I don’t know what, precisely, Obama has done (or attempted to do, but I’ll address that in a moment) vis-a-vis employment, or what he or Romney intend to do in the next four years. But:

Candidate Jeremy Stevenson intends to create incentives for companies to hire in the U.S. Tax breaks, regulatory variences, that sort of thing. Candidate Walter Goldwater intends to pursue policies that have the effect (intentional or otherwise) of creating incentives for companies to send jobs overseas. Which is better for un- or underemployed people? Which is more likely to be good for a specific individual?

More generally, Candidate Stevenson believes government has the authority, ability, and responsibility to actively encourage job creation. Candidate Goldwater, to put it briefly, does not. Which is better for un- or underemployed people? Which is more likely to be good for a specific individual?

So getting back to the actual, non-hypothetical candidates, if Obama’s attempts to boost employment have largely been rebuffed – and I doubt many of us would want the president to have the dictatorial powers necessary to avoid that – it’s difficult to say that his policies have failed; the worst I think one could really defend is that they haven’t succeeded. Most of what you see around you is not the results of the failed policies of the Obama administration but of the absense of the untried policies of the Obama administration. I’m not sure those policies would work, but there’s no evidence they haven’t.

Also, what has Romney said or done that makes you think he would be better? Do you have any reason to assume Romney would be better, other than that he’s not Obama? That’s not a rhetorical question.

As for what you literally asked, I understand the contention is not that the Obama administration directly did much to foster job growth, only that they generated economic improvements which led to job growth. And it turns out a rising tide only lifts some boats.

If everyone voted on the basis of (perceived) self-interest, the winner would be the candidate perceived to be best for a plurality of the electorate.

Also, if he’s so skilled at creating jobs as a businessman, shouldn’t we let him stick to what he’s good at? That doesn’t necessarily translate to doing it as president.

75

I’d well imagine the Founding Fathers to be flabberghasted to even get 26 votes on anything.

76

In this case voting for his self interest, more teachers, is also good for the country as a whole, so no conflict. He appears, however, to want to vote against his own interest and that of the country at the same time.

77

Romney’s austerity plan is getting a tryout in Spain. How is that turning out?

78

This is perhaps the most brilliant, eloquent way of explaining our two choices this fall. Thank you for your wit.

79

Yes. Nice job gamerununknown.

And just to be clear: the vote took place in August 2010. At that time, and at this time, interest rates were at record lows. Deficit spending during a recession is wholly consistent with textbook economics when conventional monetary policy has lost its traction. Heck, when Milton Friedman was asked to comment on the New Deal, he basically said, “Well what do you want? It was an emergency.” *

With that vote the Republicans didn’t only screw Saint Cad. They screwed everyone else as well, to the extent that they unnecessarily and gratuitously prolonged the recession, advanced unemployment and restrained economic growth. The deal the Democrats offer Wall Street is clear: we’ll give you a superior pro-growth policy in exchange for higher taxes on plutocrats and those making above $250,000 per year. Many take them up on it. After all, the stock market typically performs better under Democratic administrations.

  • Cite: Free to Choose, the 1970s PBS documentary. I’m paraphrasing from memory.
80

Actually, he is a successful businessman who knows how to destroy jobs.